3:19-cv-02031-CMC Date Filed 11/06/19 Entry Number 12 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION

Sheila Webb, ) C/A No.: 3:19-cv-02031-JMC-SVH

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) AMENDED COMPLAINT
)
Leon Lott, in his capacity as Sheriff of the ) (JURY TRIAL REQUESTED)
Richland County Sheriff’s Department and )
Cameron Duecker, )
)
Defendants. )
)

The plaintiff, complaining of the defendants above-named, would respectfully show unto
this Honorable Court:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. That Sheila Webb (“Plaintiff”), a Richland County, South Carolina resident at the
time of the incident alleged below, suffered injury while residing at 50 Periwinkle Court,
Irmo, South Carolina 29063 (“Residence”) located in Richland County, South Carolina.
2. That Leon Lott, in his capacity as Sheriff of the Richland County Sheriff’s
Department (“RCSD”), at all relevant times, was the Sheriff of the Richland County Sheriff’s
Department of the State of South Carolina and had responsibility for the management and
operation of Richland County Sheriff’s Department pursuant to the South Carolina Tort
Claims Act which makes the employing entity liable for the torts of its employees (S.C. Code
§ 15-78-70). Plaintiff alleges RCSD is liable for the acts and omissions of Cameron Duecker
(“Duecker”) during the unlawful arrest, use of excessive force on and subsequent
confinement of Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges Duecker was acting within the course and scope of
his official duties as an agent of RCSD in relation to this claim. RCSD is sued for actual and
compensatory damages under state law.
3. That Duecker was at all relevant times acting under color of state law and in the
course and scope of his duties as an agent for RCSD. Duecker is sued in his individual
capacity for actual, compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees under federal
law.

1
 3:19-cv-02031-CMC Date Filed 11/06/19 Entry Number 12 Page 2 of 10

4. That the RCSD is a political subdivision of the State of South Carolina and/or
some other type of entity that is responsible for the actions of its agents and employees and
that Duecker was an agent and/or employee of the RCSD and at all times mentioned herein
was acting within the scope and course of his employment.
5. Upon information and belief, agents and/or employees of RCSD had the right
and/or power to direct and control the manner in which its employees and/or agents executed
their duties.
6. The grossly negligent acts, omissions and liability of RCSD and Duecker includes
their agents, principals, employees and/or servants, both directly and vicariously, pursuant to
principals of non-delegable duty, corporate liability, apparent authority, agency, ostensible
agency and/or respondeat superior.
7. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
Article V, § 11 of the South Carolina Constitution and South Carolina Code §15-78-10;
venue is proper pursuant to South Carolina Code § 15-7-30. The events which give rise to
this litigation occurred in Richland County, South Carolina. Plaintiff further invokes this
Court’s concurrent jurisdiction to hear claims arising under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution and brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 &
1988 against Duecker.
8. RCSD and Duecker are jointly and severally liable for all damages alleged herein
since their negligent, grossly negligent, reckless and wanton acts and omissions, singularly or
in combination, are the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damage, injuries and losses.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9. The above stated allegations are hereby incorporated as if stated herein.
10. On or about February 19 2014, Duecker, then employed by the City of Columbia
Police Department, unlawfully detained Darris Hassell, a University of South Carolina
Professor, and after a .00 BAC reading upon suspicion of driving while impaired from
alcohol, Duecker charged and caused the incarceration of Darriss Hassell for Driving Under
the Influence; S.C. Code § 56-5-2930.
11. Hassell subsequently filed suit against Duecker for false arrest in C/A No.: 2016-
CP-40-0910 (“Suit”) and on May 19, 2017 the jury returned a verdict as against Duecker in
the amount of $200,075.00.

2
 3:19-cv-02031-CMC Date Filed 11/06/19 Entry Number 12 Page 3 of 10

12. At an unknown date subsequent to Hassell’s arrest, Duecker’s employment with

the City of Columbia was terminated and Duecker was subsequently hired by RCSD in April
of 2017.
13. On or about May 13, 2018, Duecker, as an employee of RCSD and while
investigating a domestic disturbance inside Darius Gaskin’s (“Gaskin”) residence, rushed
Gaskin’s with handcuffs when Duecker determined that Gaskin’s volume was too high in
explaining why there was a disturbance at Gaskin’s residence and subsequently tazed
Gaskin’s in the spine to further subdue him.
14. Duecker charged Gaskin’s with Disorderly Conduct pursuant to S.C. Code § 16-
17-530 for behavior observed in Gaskin’s private residence.
15. Duecker submitted a Richland County Sheriff’s Department Officer Defensive
Action Report to Internal Affairs which purportedly included all video and audio tapes of
Gaskin’s arrest.
16. Gaskin’s charge for Disorderly Conduct pursuant to S.C. Code § 16-17-530 was
subsequently dismissed but not before Duecker expressed hesitation in dismissing the charge
to Gaskin’s then Public Defender, Nate Brady, for fear that a lawsuit would follow.
17. On or about February 1, 2019, Plaintiff called 911 from her Residence to report
that her brother, William Gossett, was unlawfully using their bedridden mother’s vehicle.
18. Duecker responded to Plaintiff’s call and after Plaintiff attempted to explain the
reason for the call decided to arrest Plaintiff for Disorderly Conduct pursuant to S.C. Code §
16-17-530 and Assault While Resisting pursuant to S.C. Code § 16-9-320(B) (“Arrest”) in
her private Residence; the latter charge being a ten-year felony.
19. Duecker utilized his tazer on Plaintiff in effecting the Arrest and Plaintiff was
struck by the tazer prongs on her chest and abdomen.
20. Plaintiff suffers from fibromyalgia which causes significant hair loss on her head
and Duecker removed Plaintiff from her residence in the presence of others without
Plaintiff’s cosmetic scarf.
21. Plaintiff was treated by Richland County Emergency Medical Service for the
injuries sustained as a result of Duecker’s use of his tazer and she was delivered by Duecker
into the custody of the Alvin A. Glenn Detention Center where she received further treatment

3
 3:19-cv-02031-CMC Date Filed 11/06/19 Entry Number 12 Page 4 of 10

and was booked for Disorderly Conduct pursuant to S.C. Code § 16-17-530 and Assault
While Resisting pursuant to S.C. Code § 16-9-320(B).
22. On or about February 22, 2019, Duecker was charged with and arrested for
Assault and Battery, Third Degree, (“Assault”) for his use of force on Plaintiff during the
Arrest.
23. Leon Lott (“Lott”) in his capacity as Sheriff of the Richland County Sheriff’s
Department made public comment in response to the Assault stating, “I’m very disappointed
by this deputy’s actions . . . I expect more from my deputies. Let this arrest be a message to
him and the citizens of Richland County that I will not tolerate this kind of behavior and no
one is above the law.”
24. Lott further expressed an intent to recommend Duecker’s certification to the
South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy be revoked effectively ending Duecker’s career in
law enforcement.
25. Plaintiff’s charge of Disorderly Conduct made pursuant to S.C. Code § 16-17-530
was nolle prossed by the State of South Carolina on or about March 6, 2019 and Plaintiff’s
charge of Assault While Resisting pursuant to S.C. Code § 16-9-320(B) was dismissed not
indicted on March 6, 2019.
26. Plaintiff alleges Duecker and RCSD acted in a grossly negligent manner in
terminating Plaintiff’s liberty, assaulting her and/or in failing to observe or enforce protocols
and procedure aimed at preventing wrongful arrests, excessive force and wrongful
confinement upon which Plaintiff suffered the following injuries and damages:
a. A violation of her Constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the South Carolina
Constitution from unlawful arrest and the use of excessive force;
b. Loss of liberty; and
c. Physical pain and suffering and emotional trauma and suffering.
27. The acts and omissions of Duecker and RCSD violated the clearly established and
well settled Federal and State Constitutional rights of Plaintiff by seizing and confining her
person without probable cause and subjecting her to the use of excessive force.

4
 3:19-cv-02031-CMC Date Filed 11/06/19 Entry Number 12 Page 5 of 10

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
28. The above stated allegations are hereby incorporated as if stated herein.
29. On the date of the Incident and at all relevant times, Duecker acted under color of
state law where he was employed by RCSD as a Richland County Deputy Sheriff taxed with
various duties to include the execution of warrants, arrest of persons pursuant to a proper
finding of probable cause and the exercise of reasonable force in the execution of those
duties.
30. The Plaintiff made no statement or gestures amounting to probable cause for
violation of any South Carolina law and, more specifically, did not become or act grossly
intoxicated or use obscene or profane language in a public place sufficient to form probable
cause for arrest or use of force under South Carolina and United States common law or as
required by S.C. Code § 16-17-530 further invalidating her Arrest for Assault While
Resisting pursuant to S.C. Code § 16-9-320(B).
31. Duecker’s acts and omissions constituted a seizing, confinement and use of
excessive force on Plaintiff proximately causing a violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights protecting against such unlawful seizure and excessive force.
32. Plaintiff is entitled to an award for actual, compensatory and punitive damages as
well as attorney’s fees in an amount likely to exceed $25,000.00 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Gross Negligence and Recklessness)
33. The above stated allegations are hereby incorporated as if stated herein.
34. Duecker was under a duty not to unlawfully arrest, cause physical harm and/or
exert excessive force on the Plaintiff.
35. Duecker was grossly negligent, willful, wanton and reckless in causing injury to
Plaintiff by way of Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest and the execution of excessive force on
Plaintiff.
36. Duecker’s actions were the direct and proximate cause of the injuries and
damages suffered by the Plaintiff; said acts being in violation of the laws of the State of
South Carolina.

5
 3:19-cv-02031-CMC Date Filed 11/06/19 Entry Number 12 Page 6 of 10

37. As a result of Duecker’s gross negligence, willfulness, wantonness and

recklessness as noted above, Plaintiff is entitled to an award for actual and compensatory
damages.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(False Imprisonment)
38. The above stated allegations are hereby incorporated as if stated herein.
39. Duecker falsely imprisoned Plaintiff in that Duecker restrained Plaintiff, the
restraint was intentional and the restraint was unlawful.
40. As a result of the false imprisonment Plaintiff is entitled to and award for actual
and compensatory damages.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
41. The above stated allegations are hereby incorporated as if stated herein.
42. Duecker intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress or was
certain or substantially certain such distress would result from his conduct.
43. The conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of
decency and must be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
44. Duecker’s action caused the Plaintiff emotional distress.
45. The emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff was severe so that no reasonable
person could be expected to endure it.
46. As a result of said intentional infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiff is entitled
to an award for actual and compensatory damages.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Defamation/Defamation Per Se)
47. The above stated allegations are hereby incorporated as if stated herein.
48. Duecker made false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff.
49. The statements were unprivileged publications to a third party.
50. Duecker was at fault in publishing the statements.
51. Plaintiff is entitled to an award for general damages pursuant to a per se analysis
and an award for actual and compensatory damages.

6
 3:19-cv-02031-CMC Date Filed 11/06/19 Entry Number 12 Page 7 of 10

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Assault)
52. The above stated allegations are hereby incorporated as if stated herein.
53. Duecker committed assault against Plaintiff by engaging in conduct which placed
Plaintiff in a reasonable fear of bodily harm.
54. As a direct and proximate result of Duecker’s assault, the Plaintiff is entitled to an
award for actual and compensatory damages.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Battery)
55. The above stated allegations are hereby incorporated as if stated herein.
56. Duecker committed battery upon Plaintiff by inflicting upon her inappropriate and
unwanted physical touching.
57. As a result of said battery, the Plaintiff is entitled to an award for actual and
compensatory damages.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Malicious Prosecution)
58. The above stated allegations are hereby incorporated as if stated herein.
59. Duecker instituted and continued an original criminal proceeding against Plaintiff.
60. The judicial proceeding was at the instance of Duecker.
61. The criminal proceeding was dismissed in Plaintiff’s favor.
62. Duecker exhibited malice in instituting such proceedings.
63. There was a lack of probable cause for said proceeding.
64. Plaintiff suffered injury as a result of said proceeding and entitled to an award for
actual and compensatory damages.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence Per Se)
65. The above stated allegations are hereby incorporated as if stated herein.
66. Duecker had a duty not to violate S.C. Code § 16-3-910 which criminalizes the
unlawful seizure of adults within the State of South Carolina.
67. Duecker recklessly and grossly failed in his duty not to unlawfully seize Plaintiff.

7
 3:19-cv-02031-CMC Date Filed 11/06/19 Entry Number 12 Page 8 of 10

68. The essential purpose of S.C. Code § 16-3-910 is to prevent the unlawful seizure
of Plaintiff and the naturally occurring harm that follows as stated above.
69. Plaintiff suffered the direct and proximate harm for Duecker’s failure to not
violate S.C. Code § 16-17-722 and S.C. Code § 16-17-725 as stated above.
70. Plaintiff is entitled to an award as against Duecker for actual and compensatory
damages.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Gross Negligence, Willful and Wanton Negligent Hiring, Retention and Lack of Supervision)
71. The above stated allegations are hereby incorporated as if stated herein.
72. Duecker harmed Plaintiff in unlawfully, and without probable cause, arresting,
exercising excessive force on and causing the confinement of the Plaintiff.
73. Duecker acted within the confines of Richland County, State of South Carolina
and the jurisdiction of the Richland County Sheriff Department’s and, further, used the
Richland County Sheriff Department’s equipment and staff to restrain, exercise excessive
force, transport and confine Plaintiff.
74. RCSD reasonably knew, or had a reasonable reason to know, of the ability to
control Duecker and that he would likely commit the acts against the Plaintiff or other
persons subject to his authority granted him by RCSD as alleged above.
75. RCSD knew, or should have known, of the necessity and opportunity to control
Duecker.
76. Duecker and RCSD departed from the duties of care required by law enforcement
officers and the agencies that hire, train and employ these officers and were thereby
negligent, careless, grossly negligent, reckless, exhibited a deliberate indifference to public
welfare and acted in violation of the duties owed to Plaintiff in that they committed one or
more of the following acts of omission or commission, any or all of which were departures
from the prevailing duties of care:
a. in failing to properly review and/or investigate Duecker prior to hiring;
b. in failing to have in place proper and adequate policies, procedures and protocols
for law enforcement officers executing arrests or, if such policies, procedures and protocols
were in place, in failing to use due care to enforce them;
c. in failing to properly train and educate Duecker;

8
 3:19-cv-02031-CMC Date Filed 11/06/19 Entry Number 12 Page 9 of 10

d. in failing to dismiss or relieve Ducker upon a previous suspension, findings made

in the Suit as cited above and/or other instances of misconduct.
e. in such other particulars as may be ascertained through discovery procedures
undertaken pursuant to South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
77. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, gross negligence,
recklessness and departure from the duties of care owed by RCSD to the Plaintiff, the
Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested, restrained, subjected to excessive force, confined and
prosecuted such that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of actual and compensatory damages
sufficient to compensate her for the injuries complained of above in an amount expected to
be in excess of $25,000.00.
DAMAGES
78. The above stated allegations are hereby incorporated as if stated herein.
79. As a result of actions of Duecker and RCSD as set forth above, Plaintiff has
suffered damages to include, but not limited to, deprivation of liberty, loss of enjoyment and
quality of life, severe psychological injury and depression, shock, mental anguish,
humiliation and other damages as shall be proven at the trial of this case. Plaintiff is entitled
to an award of damages sufficient to compensate her for the injuries complained of in an
amount expected to exceed $25,000.00.

WHEREFORE, having fully set forth his Complaint, the Plaintiff prays that this
Honorable Court inquire into the matters set forth and that:
1. A jury trial be granted as now requested;
2. The amount of damages sustained by Plaintiff be ascertained and determined by a
jury under the direction of this Court;
3. The amount of punitive damages and attorney’s fees be ascertained and
determined by a jury under the direction of this Court as against Duecker;
4. An Order be entered in favor of Plaintiff as against Duecker and RCSD for the
amount due as ascertained and determined by jury under the direction of this Court;
5. An Order be entered for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

(Signature page to follow)

9
 3:19-cv-02031-CMC Date Filed 11/06/19 Entry Number 12 Page 10 of 10

s/Chris S. Truluck
Chris S. Truluck, SC Bar# 77829
1507 Richland Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Phone: (803) 556-7285
Fax: (843) 620-0502
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff

Columbia, South Carolina

October 23, 2019

10